When did the change to no longer sticky the top 10 pools in the pools section occur?
Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Mining > Pools
Seems like less than a week ago they were still stickied. Am I safe in assuming this is directly related to EMC's growing popularity and the soon to be added Variable Difficulty Shares(or similar shortened version) to EMC's subject title?
EDIT:
Decided to use the search feature and came across this thread.
Top 10 Pools stickied?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/top-10-pools-stickied-103313
and this
Mining Pools
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btc-mining-pools-list-104664
Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration! - page 63. (Read 499597 times)
September 04, 2012, 10:57:44 AM
September 04, 2012, 10:17:16 AM
At wat speed would you think or recommend miners be mining at for trying out the variable difficulty server. Is a higher possible variance the only negative drawback in higher difficulty shares, from a miners perspective? (A slow 1gh/s miner perspective)
September 04, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
How many getworks end up producing a share, on average? Is there an average?
September 04, 2012, 09:47:27 AM
That sounds good to me, Kano. What do you think about difficulty being doled out... should it be variable as it is now, or variable as powers of 2? Do you think it matters?
Right now I have the difficulty being adjusted every 3 minutes based on the getworks received in that time frame, with a target of 8 per minute. I'm not sure this is optimal yet, but I'm open to suggestions.
Dave3: Those look in line with my testing. Your speed reads a little high, but it's hard to gauge with only 15 minutes of testing. How does it look after a couple hours? What is your time estimation window set at?
Right now I have the difficulty being adjusted every 3 minutes based on the getworks received in that time frame, with a target of 8 per minute. I'm not sure this is optimal yet, but I'm open to suggestions.
Dave3: Those look in line with my testing. Your speed reads a little high, but it's hard to gauge with only 15 minutes of testing. How does it look after a couple hours? What is your time estimation window set at?
September 04, 2012, 04:45:57 AM
As per cgminer and the cgminer API, yep Diff1 is of course the most sensible base to use so comparisons can be made.
The WU: number on cgminer is Diff1 Work done per minute (it also includes all work, not just accepted shares)
The API has 'Diff1 Work' - only pools currently show it, but the next version will show it for devices also
(2.7.5 and before says 'Diff1 Shares' but I've changed that to 'Diff1 Work' for the next release since it includes all work)
Next thing I want to do is actually tally pool getworks under 3 headings: DiffA, DiffB, DiffOther
So you can see what the first 2 difficulties used were and also pool getwork totals for those and all others.
This will allow you to see what most of the work you are doing is for each pool.
I've no idea if keeping it in 3 groups like that is best or not, but that's just the idea.
The WU: number on cgminer is Diff1 Work done per minute (it also includes all work, not just accepted shares)
The API has 'Diff1 Work' - only pools currently show it, but the next version will show it for devices also
(2.7.5 and before says 'Diff1 Shares' but I've changed that to 'Diff1 Work' for the next release since it includes all work)
Next thing I want to do is actually tally pool getworks under 3 headings: DiffA, DiffB, DiffOther
So you can see what the first 2 difficulties used were and also pool getwork totals for those and all others.
This will allow you to see what most of the work you are doing is for each pool.
I've no idea if keeping it in 3 groups like that is best or not, but that's just the idea.
September 04, 2012, 02:05:50 AM
Ok, if anyone wants to try out the variable difficulty server, you can connect to:
http://us3.eclipsemc.com:8437
That will give you share difficulty based off your hashrate. Let me know if anyone finds any problems. I've added an "average difficulty" column to the My Workers page.
http://us3.eclipsemc.com:8437
That will give you share difficulty based off your hashrate. Let me know if anyone finds any problems. I've added an "average difficulty" column to the My Workers page.
I'm trying it out now. Here's a screenshot after it's had a chance to settle for about 15 minutes.
Code:
cgminer version 2.7.5 - Started: [2012-09-04 13:44:23]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5s):1622.0 (avg):1616.9 Mh/s | Q:36 A:176 R:0 HW:0 E:489% U:10.1/m
TQ: 0 ST: 3 SS: 0 DW: 5 NB: 2 LW: 710 GF: 1 RF: 0 WU: 26.3
Connected to http://us3.eclipsemc.com:8437 with LP as user ---
Block: 0000028ac1f60ffee5bd6bf3983c224b... Started: [13:44:24]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[P]ool management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
BFL 0: 58.0C | 811.0/810.5Mh/s | A:92 R:0 HW:0 U: 5.29/m
BFL 1: 59.6C | 811.0/810.5Mh/s | A:86 R:0 HW:0 U: 4.94/m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-09-04 13:57:54] Accepted 10268b48.ad38c5d7 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:57:54] Accepted 2e41fd1d.ec388744 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:57:59] Accepted 08496ec2.e110f28d BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:58:00] Accepted 1f0b686e.dc00bb7e BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:58:00] Accepted 06285863.e4528ac9 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:58:05] Accepted 2c89b5a4.b0c6387f BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:58:10] Accepted 3a478ad4.61b0409c BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:58:21] Accepted 1d34adf4.7cf74461 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:58:31] Accepted 0c0595d1.b1b6cebb BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:58:58] Accepted 2bbac7f9.617672f6 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:59:03] Accepted 086b8829.f1232580 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:59:19] Accepted 2848d96b.ae49cbc9 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:59:19] Accepted 08a78648.026863f7 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:59:30] Accepted 0a0a4ee0.726e102e BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 13:59:51] Accepted 171214fe.9d263b90 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:00:01] Accepted 3c8e91e0.a835c0c6 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:00:07] Accepted 2bc0c3c7.c147a6e6 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:00:07] Accepted 2d3e8319.3bf4b7bc BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:00:07] Accepted 0cac4cfb.dbc96264 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:00:12] Accepted 3cb08837.0a28d981 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:00:17] Accepted 28d9a195.7e3b2c46 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:00:23] Accepted 45baf6e8.05d1ed00 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:00:38] Accepted 10e7ec4c.dc54a2b8 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:00:49] Accepted 09805306.4e95b86c BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:00:49] Accepted 42ca7b3f.c3829ead BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:00] Accepted 2c154b71.af0fb45c BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:00] Accepted 34736018.6a2edb21 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:00] Accepted 3e6d4f29.acdd2dcf BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:00] Accepted 382c6dd6.9b6084c8 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:10] Accepted 13b01a70.49631273 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:15] Accepted 0b8ab068.8b9aa206 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:26] Accepted 19ec869e.e8722e90 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:26] Accepted 063bd9d0.9222c128 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:37] Accepted 2e9d2a8f.995c76f7 BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:37] Accepted 564191df.9c186cb5 BFL 1 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:47] Accepted 50c88ba2.ebce6aba BFL 0 pool 0
[2012-09-04 14:01:47] Accepted 3d74fc33.bcccbae9 BFL 1 pool 0
September 03, 2012, 10:05:56 PM
Ok, if anyone wants to try out the variable difficulty server, you can connect to:
http://us3.eclipsemc.com:8437
That will give you share difficulty based off your hashrate. Let me know if anyone finds any problems. I've added an "average difficulty" column to the My Workers page.
http://us3.eclipsemc.com:8437
That will give you share difficulty based off your hashrate. Let me know if anyone finds any problems. I've added an "average difficulty" column to the My Workers page.
September 03, 2012, 06:54:02 PM
I like the sound of diffculty 1 equivilents of DOE. It is a good common ground for compairison. If you went variable by the lowest common denominator it is possible that people disconnecting would alter the equivelence. So I would say Difficulty 1 for now and some static equivilent later if needed.
September 03, 2012, 03:39:29 PM
Right now, I have it set to target 8 getworks per minute returned. So if you submit more, you are bumped up in difficulty. I do like the average diff over time idea, I will have to figure out how to make that happen.
September 03, 2012, 03:34:16 PM
Makes sense to me. 1diff is the benchmark.
Might be nice to have on the "My Workers" page another column showing something like "Average diff over time period".
Abbreviated in some way, of course.
--
edit: What algorithm are you using to 'allocate' a diff level to a given worker / work request?
Might be nice to have on the "My Workers" page another column showing something like "Average diff over time period".
Abbreviated in some way, of course.
--
edit: What algorithm are you using to 'allocate' a diff level to a given worker / work request?
September 03, 2012, 03:30:45 PM
Ok, so I have a variable difficulty server up and running. Before I make it public, though, I want to ask everyone what they think:
Currently, on the my workers page, it lists the actual number of shares submitted. That's fine on a static difficulty, where, for example, a 10diff share is worth approximately 10 1diff shares... so it makes sense. But on the new server, and going forward, as you mine your difficulty is adjusted dynamically... so over the course of an hour you might send in 10 2diff shares, 7 5.4423diff shares, 25 6.44321343diff shares, etc... So it makes a direct comparison meaningless.
Since EMC is the first to implement this, we can effectively define the de facto standard on how to display this. That said, my first thought is to just take everything to the lowest common denominator and display everything as 1diff shares and effectively ignore the number of shares submitted at a given difficulty. That would be used strictly behind the scenes, but for all intents and purposes, all display GUI information would be quoted in 1diff.
Who's got comments? Let me hear them!
Currently, on the my workers page, it lists the actual number of shares submitted. That's fine on a static difficulty, where, for example, a 10diff share is worth approximately 10 1diff shares... so it makes sense. But on the new server, and going forward, as you mine your difficulty is adjusted dynamically... so over the course of an hour you might send in 10 2diff shares, 7 5.4423diff shares, 25 6.44321343diff shares, etc... So it makes a direct comparison meaningless.
Since EMC is the first to implement this, we can effectively define the de facto standard on how to display this. That said, my first thought is to just take everything to the lowest common denominator and display everything as 1diff shares and effectively ignore the number of shares submitted at a given difficulty. That would be used strictly behind the scenes, but for all intents and purposes, all display GUI information would be quoted in 1diff.
Who's got comments? Let me hear them!
September 03, 2012, 02:24:57 PM
Luck is defined as "What percentage of blocks are longer than this one."
It used to be defined as "Percentage of shares from the target," but people convinced me to change it wayyy back in the double digit pages. I'm open to other suggestions, of course, but that's what everyone agreed at the time was the best measure of luck.
Yes, the above has been my understanding as well. Thinking this through again, I was going by the false assumption at exactly 1/2 of the blocks would be smaller than 'difficulty' (2440643), and 1/2 would be larger, which was my mistake. It makes sense now, thanks. It used to be defined as "Percentage of shares from the target," but people convinced me to change it wayyy back in the double digit pages. I'm open to other suggestions, of course, but that's what everyone agreed at the time was the best measure of luck.
September 03, 2012, 02:06:15 PM
Luck is defined as "What percentage of blocks are longer than this one."
It used to be defined as "Percentage of shares from the target," but people convinced me to change it wayyy back in the double digit pages. I'm open to other suggestions, of course, but that's what everyone agreed at the time was the best measure of luck.
It used to be defined as "Percentage of shares from the target," but people convinced me to change it wayyy back in the double digit pages. I'm open to other suggestions, of course, but that's what everyone agreed at the time was the best measure of luck.
September 03, 2012, 01:33:27 PM
Inaba, I noticed something strange about the 'Luck' display on the 'Block History' page. Take for example the following 2 recently-solved blocks:
block 197059, shares 2170260, luck 41.1%
block 197045, shares 1643689, luck 50.99%
The current difficulty is 2440643 so I would expect any block with shares less than 2440643 to display a luck above 50%. Taking block 197059 above as an example, that block had only 2170260 shares (i.e. less than difficulty). It was thus a bit 'luckier' than average. So its luck value should be above 50%, yet the website shows it as 41.1%.
Also, taking a look at the 2nd example above (block 197045), it shows its luck as being only 50.99% ... yet it only had 1643689 shares ... its luck value should be significantly higher than 50%.
It almost appears as if the luck calculation is being based on a lower difficulty than the current 2440643, perhaps something around 1650000. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here (which is quite possible).
block 197059, shares 2170260, luck 41.1%
block 197045, shares 1643689, luck 50.99%
The current difficulty is 2440643 so I would expect any block with shares less than 2440643 to display a luck above 50%. Taking block 197059 above as an example, that block had only 2170260 shares (i.e. less than difficulty). It was thus a bit 'luckier' than average. So its luck value should be above 50%, yet the website shows it as 41.1%.
Also, taking a look at the 2nd example above (block 197045), it shows its luck as being only 50.99% ... yet it only had 1643689 shares ... its luck value should be significantly higher than 50%.
It almost appears as if the luck calculation is being based on a lower difficulty than the current 2440643, perhaps something around 1650000. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here (which is quite possible).
September 03, 2012, 12:20:44 PM
PACRIM and EU both currently point to one of the US servers (I can't recall which off the top of my head). I plan on putting up a new PACRIM server in Japan or such, I just haven't gotten around to it as of yet with everything else going on. I want to get the variable difficulty in place and working flawlessly then I will put up the new PACRIM and EU servers, no sense in doing the work twice.
September 03, 2012, 11:45:05 AM
I trust Inuba will do whats fair
Inuba, do you mind posting on the first page ALL the different servers. I noticed pacific rim isn't on the list. It took me HOURS of trolling thru the forums to find it. my connections to the server has been heaps better since I've been using it.
Inuba, do you mind posting on the first page ALL the different servers. I noticed pacific rim isn't on the list. It took me HOURS of trolling thru the forums to find it. my connections to the server has been heaps better since I've been using it.
September 03, 2012, 10:23:47 AM
I think there's a problem with the diff10 server and NMC I just noticed I have been receiving less as well. I think I found the bug and it should be fixed now going forward, I am sorry about that.
With regards to transaction fees, I will look into that when it becomes a significant issue. Right, it averages about .1 BTC per block, perhaps a bit less, so it's one of the ways I can keep from having to charge a fee. Between that and donations, the pool gets around 0.4% of each block, but when it starts becoming significant and impacting miner income noticeably, I will probably switch over to paying some portion, if not all of the transaction fees, yes.
With regards to transaction fees, I will look into that when it becomes a significant issue. Right, it averages about .1 BTC per block, perhaps a bit less, so it's one of the ways I can keep from having to charge a fee. Between that and donations, the pool gets around 0.4% of each block, but when it starts becoming significant and impacting miner income noticeably, I will probably switch over to paying some portion, if not all of the transaction fees, yes.
September 03, 2012, 09:38:33 AM
Inaba, I don't believe you are paying out transaction fees. True?
If so, do you have plans to add this?
Not much now, but twice as relevant in about three months.
If so, do you have plans to add this?
Not much now, but twice as relevant in about three months.
September 03, 2012, 06:27:55 AM
Confirm, I hardly get any nmc too. So what? Its like 0.4btc a month for me.
I agree it's not enough to be a big deal, but I thought it's worth mentioning. If it's a problem, probably good to get it on the to-do list before the diff10 or variable difficulty stuff gets rolled out to everyone.
September 03, 2012, 06:07:58 AM
Kano, When I said no hopping I did tell the truth but in thinking over the question more I wonder if GPUMax isn't either delaying a LP or not properly sending me new work as fast as it should. I am trying to get my direct connction to go rejecting. So far no luck. There have been strings of rejects but not enough. It almost looks like CGMiner takes the prev-blk and requsts new work after 6 units or so it worked on being stale that way.
It looks like I could come up with a better way to handle it. If I could get GPUMax to actually fail when there is no work.
Deleted my private pool. eclipseMC. lets see if it helps me.
EDIT: Keeps sending work to EclipseMC. Set my private pool to diff10. hoping when that gets done with testing that I will suddenly have no private work on GPUMax. Of course if that server gets frowarded to any other then yeah will be back to manual managing. Really fairly sure is GPUMax issue now. I still get blocks of stales from eclipse but never 13 in a row rejected. Some number interspersed are always accepted. More like what it shoudl look like.
I still have the occasional 2-4 rejects and accepted another reject then all accepted. I always assumed it was actually current work as I don't leave debug on but It is possible that I still had one more late work left to submit.
It looks like I could come up with a better way to handle it. If I could get GPUMax to actually fail when there is no work.
Deleted my private pool. eclipseMC. lets see if it helps me.
EDIT: Keeps sending work to EclipseMC. Set my private pool to diff10. hoping when that gets done with testing that I will suddenly have no private work on GPUMax. Of course if that server gets frowarded to any other then yeah will be back to manual managing. Really fairly sure is GPUMax issue now. I still get blocks of stales from eclipse but never 13 in a row rejected. Some number interspersed are always accepted. More like what it shoudl look like.
I still have the occasional 2-4 rejects and accepted another reject then all accepted. I always assumed it was actually current work as I don't leave debug on but It is possible that I still had one more late work left to submit.
Jump to: